Wednesday, June 8, 2016

REDLAND, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FL - A WOMAN WAS VICIOUSLY ATTACKED BY A VERY LARGE STRAY BULLDOG SHE WAS TRYING TO GET ANIMAL CONTROL TO COME HELP

A woman who said she was attacked by a BULLDOG, which she was trying to save, spoke out Wednesday. She's now trying to shed light on a stray dog problem plaguing her neighborhood. It's a problem she said led her to take home a dying street dog that only ended up pouncing on her. After several surgeries, she wants to advocate for change.

Melinda Gielmurray can't fully extend her arm. For weeks it's been bandaged, along with her leg. With a large property in Redland, with horses and dogs and plenty of things to tend to, it hasn't been easy. But she's focused on just being alive. She said a massive, 135-pound Bulldog almost killed her.

UPDATED

"It just snapped," she said. "I've never seen anything like that. He attacked me and latched on to my leg. My husband jumped on the dog and was able to tell me to run."

The wounds left on her arm and leg are proof enough of the severity of the attack. Gielmurray said the only reason she took in the dog was to save it.

UP

"It was being eaten alive by bugs. It had been homeless for a year," she said.

With a soft spot for animals, she took it in only for someone to come get it.

"[The county] told me that they couldn't come out and deal with a stray dog. I told them that the dog was outside circling the property and I was scared to leave my house but they still couldn't come," Gielmurray explained.

As far as her wounds go, two surgeries later, they're getting better. But what she wants is two things: the county to do a better job monitoring the stray dog situation in Redland.UP

The other is for people to stop dumping unwanted dogs in Redland, because it's the neighbors, like her, who wind up getting hurt trying to fix the problem or worse.

Gielmurray's message is don't dump your dog. Turn it in to the county, where it can be accounted for.

5 comments:

Miami Dade AC is run by Kathleen Labrada, pit-freak extraordinaire. Every pit bull that comes into her shelter is labelled 'AmBull' (which is a pit bull - mastiff mix) so as to protect it from Dade's pit bull ban.

As she does this, Labrada also advertises that the Dade shelter is now 'No Kill'.

http://www.miamidade.gov/animals/about-us.asp

That means they will adopt the usual 'no kill' procedures and no longer accept or pick up animals they know they'll have to euthanize due to serious aggression problems -- this despite a new shelter that will open on June 13 with double the capacity of the old shelter.

http://www.miamidade.gov/animals/new-shelter.asp

And it's no wonder that they -- like all 'No Kill' shelters limit admissions. Despite being run by a pit-freak and going 'No Kill', Labrada and her bunch are still being attacked by the nutters for not 'asving' and rescuing every single pit bulls the nutter dump at the Dade shelter.

Example: https://www.facebook.com/TheHiddenTruthBehindTheBars/

So the nutters keep pumping out litters then dumping them, then they ignite in a fury that someone else isn't 'saving' the pit bulls they dump. Labrada responds by deciding that her 'live release' figures are more important than really saving any dog, worse yet than protecting human life. Politicians ignore the referendum (67% for keeping the pit bull ban) and hire a pit freak to enforce it.

Turn your dog in to the county? But the county doesn't want to deal with unwanted dogs.

How does this woman know that the dog was dumped? It might have escaped its yard. My county won't pick up a stray, unless it has been secured. That's all that should happen with dangerous breed strays; secure them, then call Animal Control. Do not try to interact with the beasts beyond that.

The story doesn't say anything about the "bulldog" harassing livestock. What I meant was, secure the beast, then wait for animal control. Not try to feed it, give it water, play with it, spray bug spray on it.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.